[mr.x2]

Let's hear it! Both the midgets and the tall freaks!

[Canadian Mind]

Amacon! :D

600 feet of corporate glory on 1133 Melville street (hoping for more height & girth, make her a landmark!

Building on stilts! :D

potentially up to 660 feet of museum, rtail, hotel, and housing, half of which is on stilts to avoid a viewcone!


those are the rumours I know of and are damn proud of to spread.

[Mike K.]

Bump...just so new visitors can see this thread.

[raggedy13]

Latest basic design of Amacon tower.

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g296/raggedy13/ama.jpg

[marmorek]

^ Awesome.

[mr.x2]

Latest basic design of Amacon tower.

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g296/raggedy13/ama.jpg

sweetness! does the site block any view cones and does it exceed the area's height limit?

[Canadian Mind]

Sweet damn, does the patio cut into the side of the building like that?, or did you just do that to illustrate where it will be? And any chance of changes in the dimensions again? either width or height?

Also, when looking at downtown from coal harbour, which side of the Melville will it be on?

[raggedy13]

^It'll essentially be to the immediate left of the Melville when looking from the Coal Harbour side. I didn't alter anything, that is how the current design appears from an elevation showing the south side - the Loden addition has a slanted wall and the tower has an oppositely angled wall to it with the podium roof space inbetween taken up by a patio. I'm sure it's all still subject to change though. No changes on dimensions that I'm aware of. It's set at 48 storeys at the moment not including mechanical.

There are no specific view cone restrictions on the site, it is in the same splice of air space as the Shangri-La and RC, however it is within the broken line box which only allows a maximum height of up to 400ft.

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g296/raggedy13/Misc/ViewCones.gif

[Canadian Mind]

Any idea's where they are going to get the density from?

[Hot Rod]

So does this thread replace the Vancouver Construction 3 thread? I really loved that thread, since it was a common meeting place to find out what's happening in the city.

I hope that is the intent of this thread or that we recreate the Vancouver Construction General thread, so I dont have to individually thumb through EVERY thread to get info.

[Canadian Mind]

no, this is just for rumours.

[mr.x2]

So does this thread replace the Vancouver Construction 3 thread? I really loved that thread, since it was a common meeting place to find out what's happening in the city.

I hope that is the intent of this thread or that we recreate the Vancouver Construction General thread, so I dont have to individually thumb through EVERY thread to get info.

the point of this thread is to post rumours on projects that have yet to be announced, i.e. Amacon. please don't turn this into a Vancouver Construction thread! that is not it's purpose!


btw, do you guys want this topic pinned?

[Canadian Mind]

Why not? :P This one and the general update thread thing.

[Hot Rod]

X, dont get too excited.

I only wanted clarification since I didn't see a replacement for the Construction General thread yet.

Now I see it and it is pinned, thanks.

[Bert]

Hay guys! A woman with steel toed boots on the Shangri La site told me that there'll be a retractable helipad on the roof of the jutting box thing. She sounded pretty official about it.

[Canadian Mind]

lol, i've met alot of chicks with steel toed boots. :P I don't think there will be a heli-pad there though, that has been designated as a sky graden... no room for a heli-pad.

maybe it will jet-out from the roof, but not the sky garden... what use is there for a heli-pad on a residential tower anyways?

[mr.x2]

Hay guys! A woman with steel toed boots on the Shangri La site told me that there'll be a retractable helipad on the roof of the jutting box thing. She sounded pretty official about it.

why on earth would they have a helipad there? still pretty cool though.


Maybe they could launch fireworks atop of the Shangri-la during the 2010 Olympic Ceremonies......


Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games
http://images.ungeekenaustralia.com/2006/03/Fireworks.jpg

[Hed Kandi]

Who is the architect for the Amacon tower?

[jlousa]

The helipad on shangri-la will tie in with their submarine docking station under the tower, they have an underground canal connecting to coal harbour. The guy at the chevron where the lady with the steel toe boots fills up her car told me so.

Cmon guys this is getting way out of hand. Almost to the point where I don't feel like posting anymore.

[LeftCoaster]

At least Bert was kidding.... I think... I hope.

[hollywoodnorth]

The helipad on shangri-la will tie in with their submarine docking station under the tower, they have an underground canal connecting to coal harbour. The guy at the chevron where the lady with the steel toe boots fills up her car told me so.

Cmon guys this is getting way out of hand. Almost to the point where I don't feel like posting anymore.


If Mr X and Mike K let you post that is ;)

[agrant]

There's a helipad???!!!

[hollywoodnorth]

actually there is gonna be 2 helipads.......1 on Ritz across the street......I just talked to one of the Demolition Works........and come on Demo Workers know all right? ;)

2 heli pads whooo!!

I hear Helijet is planning on renting the one on Shangri-la. As the Whitecaps stadium is gonna make thier current one useless. Cool news eh?!

[osirisboy]

Cmon guys this is getting way out of hand. Almost to the point where I don't feel like posting anymore.

normally i would agree however this is thread to post rumours. everything on this specific thread should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Mininari]

Back to the Amacon Tower...
This thing is a rumour (a seemingly well-sourced rumour), and we have an ongoing civic strike in Vancouver.

What are the chances that the city is going to allow a 900K sq/ft tower, 600ft tall in a zone designated for 400 (with SPECIAL permissions to get to 450ft). I know its office space, and Vancouver is desperate for new AAA space... but what about the "Higher Buildings Policy" and density rules that will no doubtedly be flaunted.

Is an office tower the exception to policy?
Will this puppy come to us as rumoured... or will it end up another 300ft stub?

[raggedy13]

Initial concept behind 'stilt' project a friend passed my way...

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g296/raggedy13/tst.jpg

[slurrey]

I Came

[squeezied]

Holy Shit!

[Mike K.]

Jesus H. Christ...

[squeezied]

i really how central the location is, right between shangri-la and one wall. hard to tell, but the residential portion looks similar to some condos, like the capitol; on the other hand, its elliptical shape might compliment one wall. owell hafta see more first!

[hollywoodnorth]

Holy Mother Of God!

[Mike K.]

It's Vancouver's take on

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Tuntex_Sky_Tower_Kaohsiung_Taiwan.jpg/270px-Tuntex_Sky_Tower_Kaohsiung_Taiwan.jpg
...sorta.

[danby]

^^^ I much more like Vancouvers compared to that!

[Canadian Mind]

Ha Ha! Fuck.

Who called it? :P

I find it rather amazing how much this thread exploded when the new thing came up. Seeing as how this isn't necessarily a rumour anymore (someone actually drew a rendering of the thing somewhere) should we give it it's own thread now?

Also, I'm kinda disappointed with the residential section. While it looks awesome as it is, I would hope that they would try to get a bit more square footage out of the residential portion by making it longer. if it were made wider I'm sure it would become unstable, but length extensions past each of the respective pillars wouldn't screw up stability (I would hope).



PS. Mike, no. This thing is unique in shape and form. Not to say it isn't related to that, but this is on a far more extreme level.


Back to the Amacon Tower...
This thing is a rumour (a seemingly well-sourced rumour), and we have an ongoing civic strike in Vancouver.

What are the chances that the city is going to allow a 900K sq/ft tower, 600ft tall in a zone designated for 400 (with SPECIAL permissions to get to 450ft). I know its office space, and Vancouver is desperate for new AAA space... but what about the "Higher Buildings Policy" and density rules that will no doubtedly be flaunted.

Is an office tower the exception to policy?
Will this puppy come to us as rumoured... or will it end up another 300ft stub?

IMO fuck policy

[Mike K.]

PS. Mike, no. This thing is unique in shape and form. Not to say it isn't related to that, but this is on a far more extreme level.

Absolutely. I was being more tongue and cheek than comparing the two directly, but that aside, the two buildings would share very similar weight bearing and structural elements. Vancouver's "spire" element sits atop two exposed support structures but Taiwan's support structures are enveloped by the square footage necessary to make that office tower financially viable. Both also sit on a podium. Aesthetically, of course, Vancouver's version has more curvature than Taiwan's could throw a stick at, but, as I said above, structurally the designs are similar (you just need to take away the aesthetic component and consider the internal elements independently).

[giallo]

Will this ever pass the UDP? Me thinks this is just a tad too extreme for architecturally conservative Vancouver.

[vanman]

I Came

And I just crapped my pants. That thing is insane.

[Mininari]

WOW! ! !

:slob:

I think I speak for everyone reading this thread when I say:
"I want to see this in a skyline render!!!"


Judging by the Burrard/Haro/Smith street labels, this is to replace the Sutton Place Hotel?
Or was that fact known ages ago?

[Canadian Mind]

Will this ever pass the UDP? Me thinks this is just a tad too extreme for architecturally conservative Vancouver.


Unified voice through a city-based lobby group would be nice. ;)

Is the general populous allowed to attend and comment on the UDP panels?

i need a map to show me where this puppy is going. *busts out Google earth*

edit, found it: 230 meters from Wall Centre, and 250 meters from Shangri-la. This will undouptably fill the skyline in looking from English Bay.

Anyone thought of possible shadowing concerns on Robson Street?

[1ajs]

:0 wow....

[mr.x2]

i peed, i pooed, my nose bled, i puked, and lastly, i started to cry.

[MichaelChampion]

i peed, i pooed, my nose bled, i puked, and lastly, i started to cry.

Sounds like you had an awesome Sunday.

Building is sweet, can't wait to see what happens with this, although I do hope they make the stilts meeting the residential a little smoother than in the rough render.

[Hot Rod]

This is nice.

But so is Tuntex tower in Kaohsiung (you know, Taiwan). That's one of my most favourite superskyscrapers.

If ONLY this one could be as tall as the Tuntex tower!!! Heck, I'd even settle for 700'.

[SFUVancouver]

Wow! I like what I see. I agree the transition from the stilts to residential component will need to be worked out but as a concept, and a detailed one at that, I'm blown away. It feels like there is a change afoot when it comes to developing downtown and the new crop of tall buildings, most notably the Shangri-La, will go far to foster additional tall buildings and, hopefully, more daring architecture.

[mr.x2]

I was thinking, on the underbelly/ass/crotch (whatever you wanna call it) of the residential stilted component, they could have some sort of murial or have a giant LED screen flashing images:
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/1820/suttonlh7.jpg

For comparisson's sake, the Sutton Place Hotel is 232 feet tall.



btw, thanks for posting this rag.

[Canadian Mind]

I was thinking, on the underbelly/ass/crotch (whatever you wanna call it) of the residential stilted component, they could have some sort of murial or have a giant LED screen flashing images:
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/1820/suttonlh7.jpg

For comparisson's sake, the Sutton Place Hotel is 232 feet tall.



btw, thanks for posting this rag.

Which is about the same size as the hotel and office portions as far as I can tell.

Anyways, I think to have the stilts meet the residential they should make them align with the sides of the residential tower up until they have to turn in (rounding the corners of course) giving them more of a triangle shaped cross section than what appears to be an oval right now.

Also, I know I've always been a fan of increasing the height of buildings in Vancouver... hell, i've said we should tear down the marine building and Teresen in the name of height and density... but I think we can all agree here that now that there is a possible way to defeat the view cones, why not finally reach for the sky? This building is right in the middle of the city, and on some fairly high-up ground... why not make it the current peak of Vancouver? I'd love to see something over 700-800 feet.

Again, I say we should lobby to help get this building through the UDP and inspire change in both architectural quality and the general opinion of height in our city. In doing so I think we should also lobby the city to allow this thing to go damn near as high as the developers are willing to make it go (within reasonable boundaries).

[mr.x2]

i was hoping for the museum to be bigger. it looks like it's also about 3 storeys, like the retail component.....though i would think it's actually about 2-storeys of museum assuming that they want more air space for exhibits that require more space.

raggedy, do you have more info on the museum? the square footage?


at least we're finally getting a real facility for the Vancouver Museum. Vanier Park just doesn't do it.

[Jarrod]

I dunnooo... I don't really like it... to me it looks like penis and balls...

[Canadian Mind]

Think it will be enough of a kicker for the city to allow the development to happen?

And I'm sure that the airspace between the office and hotel can be filler in with more museum space if it was required. the viewcone doesn't start for several more stories up.

How big is the site?

I dunnooo... I don't really like it... to me it looks like penis and balls...

Mind in the gutter much dude? :P

You know you are From the Comox Valley when...

[mr.x2]

I dunnooo... I don't really like it... to me it looks like penis and balls...

well then, you know where all the gay guys on Davie will be heading to...


how would they get the top residential component built without the whole thing coming down? how do they do it in other cities with similar developments?

[Canadian Mind]

I'd expect they would build the base towers first, then the stilts, then put in temporary steel members from between the towers to support the transfer beam. Once that is done I'd suspect they would complete ground level retail.

I would also venture to guess that they may employ the use of an aircrane when building the residential portion, as they would have basically nothing to anchor a crane too for the first few stories.

[nathan6969]

Hahaha...this is basically like giving the finger to the viewcone policy...i love it...

[bils]

how would they get the top residential component built without the whole thing coming down? how do they do it in other cities with similar developments?

if they can build this.......

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v646/cityq/Projects%20and%20developments/CCTVHeadquarters2.jpg

........then they can certainly build THAT :previous: :yes:

[mr.x2]

if they can build this.......

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v646/cityq/Projects%20and%20developments/CCTVHeadquarters2.jpg

........then they can certainly build THAT :previous: :yes:

haha, i never doubted they couldn't. i've just always wondered how exactly they built these types.

[raggedy13]

raggedy, do you have more info on the museum? the square footage?

Sorry not much further info at the moment, but I think the last I heard it won't necessarily be the Vancouver Museum... for now it is just sort of generic 'museum' space, though the Vancouver Museum was thought of as a possible tenant for the concept. I don't think the Vancouver Museum has been approached with this idea yet, if they ever are.

Also, keep in mind that this is only 1 of 3 potential site plans... the other two keeping within general view cone policy.

[Canadian Mind]

^^^ meaning that they all stay below the 240 foot limit, with no stilts, or just a change in what is already there?

Hahaha...this is basically like giving the finger to the viewcone policy...i love it...

I see a pair actually... one for each hand. :D

[vitc]

There is a god!!! That building is amazing...one question though and we all know this will come up at the meetings - what about an earthquake??

I do however PRAY that this will be built...any insight as to the response that this will garner at the city??

[raggedy13]

^^Yeah no stilts. I think one of the other two concepts is based upon remaining below the view cone, and the second is based upon adding some bonus density through density transfers etc and getting it a bit above the view cone limit that way, but still nowhere near 600ft.

[mr.x2]

Sorry not much further info at the moment, but I think the last I heard it won't necessarily be the Vancouver Museum... for now it is just sort of generic 'museum' space, though the Vancouver Museum was thought of as a possible tenant for the concept. I don't think the Vancouver Museum has been approached with this idea yet, if they ever are.

Also, keep in mind that this is only 1 of 3 potential site plans... the other two keeping within general view cone policy.

It would be a great site for any museum. Maybe the HR Macmillan Space Centre? If you used your imagination, it could look like a rocket. (but they would mean they would lose a lot of facilities from the Vanier Park building like the laser show theatre and the observatory). I've always thought the space centre should be part of Science World.


Anyhow, something like Victoria's BC Museum would be great.

[Canadian Mind]

deleted

[Canadian Mind]

There is a god!!! That building is amazing...one question though and we all know this will come up at the meetings - what about an earthquake??

I do however PRAY that this will be built...any insight as to the response that this will garner at the city??

Earthquake --- I'm no engineer, but if guy-wires can support communications towers, why can't guy-wires support the building in the event of an earthquake too?

as for the city response, they'll prolley be against the idea of going overtop of the view cones... but I'm sure if the developer spins it the right way, plus enough positive feedback from people such as ourselves to combat the NIMBYs, it can be pulled off.

[mr.x2]

Earthquake --- I'm no engineer, but if guy-wires can support communications towers, why can't guy-wires support the building in the event of an earthquake too?

as for the city response, they'll prolley be against the idea of going overtop of the view cones... but I'm sure if the developer spins it the right way, plus enough positive feedback from people such as ourselves to combat the NIMBYs, it can be pulled off.

This is going to be a lot like Whitecaps Stadium. Those NIMBY's were complaining about how the whole stadium could crumble on the pillars it sits on. They're going to be crying and tearing about how they live next to a ticking time bomb, the day that the sky falls on them.

*plays violin*

[Canadian Mind]

Hey, rumour mill, stilts has it's own thread here (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=3085344#post3085344).

[Hed Kandi]

Initial concept behind 'stilt' project...

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g296/raggedy13/tst.jpg


Wow!

Who is the architects?

[Mike K.]

Please continue this discussion here (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=138589).

[feisto]

I've heard that plans for the Westin Bayshore condo tower are now cancelled. Also heard that pre-sales are slow at one of Delta Lands projects (Hotel Georgia?). Any truth to this? Is this indicative of a larger trend?

[jlousa]

The high-end does have a abudance of supply that came online all at once. But Fairmont sold pretty well, The residences at the Ritz and Hotel Georgia are selling slower but selling none the less. But the rest of the market is still very strong. Ie Patina sold very well, and I imagine Olympic village is going to be a huge success also.
Haven't heard anyting regarding the westin bayshore but rumour has it the Four Season is in the market for another location in town and it would include residences like some of their newer properties ie seattle. There are also rumblings about Mandarin Oriental coming to town, but there seems to be a lot of new high end hotels around here, but then again I'm not in the hotel business.

[Hed Kandi]

The high-end does have a abudance of supply that came online all at once. But Fairmont sold pretty well, The residences at the Ritz and Hotel Georgia are selling slower but selling none the less. But the rest of the market is still very strong. Ie Patina sold very well, and I imagine Olympic village is going to be a huge success also.
Haven't heard anyting regarding the westin bayshore but rumour has it the Four Season is in the market for another location in town and it would include residences like some of their newer properties ie seattle. There are also rumblings about Mandarin Oriental coming to town, but there seems to be a lot of new high end hotels around here, but then again I'm not in the hotel business.


Vancouver is still missing a lot of higher end hotel chains eg. Mandarin Oriental, Waldorf Astoria, Kempinski, Conrad, Jumeirah, Omni, etc

But, Vancouver is also booming in that respect with the Shangri La, Ritz Carlton, W Hotels, etc


Lots of potential and room for development in this city!

[djh]

I was in a sales showroom this weekend for a development near the SEFC project. The saleswoman, obviously keen to land what she believes is an out-of-town sucker (being a Brit and underplaying my knowledge of the area), she went on a real hard sales pitch about how good a bargain the area east of the Olympic Village is - considering the projects there are "$800/sq. ft and up", whereas her development is $500/sq. ft.
So I started pointing to blank boxes on her area map. "What's there?" - she completely ignored the drug rehabilitation facility I knew about on the block. "Oh, just warehouses." "What about there?", "Oh, low-rise buildings - they won't block your view". Then she pointed on her map to what was clearly labelled "Finning Station". I asked her "What's that?" "Oh, they're building the Millennium Line station there. I had the guy from Translink in just a few days ago and he said it's going ahead, definitely, and will probably go up to UBC. But there will *definitely* be a Skytrain station only a few blocks away should you choose to buy in our development..."

So I called her back on that issue. Now I am not sitting here holding my breath (or saying "a woman with a yellow hat on said they're adding another floor to the Shangri-La") and yes, salespeople will say the most outrageous things to land a sale, but the fact that this was clearly marked on the development plan for the area and she had (allegedly) actually talked to somebody in Translink about it...that's at least a good sign that the area plan has reserved space for the station, and by the way she's talking, they are already working behind the scenes on making it a reality, pending results of consultations or not.

[squeezied]

which developement is this?

[jlousa]

I imagine djh is referring to Jacobsen correct me if I'm wrong, not a big fan of the project, and it seems to be selling very slowly. (Not quite SEFC, not quite SOMA, kinda trying to be both but ending up failing at both)
Regarding the Finning station, there isn't really news, we know there will be a station there, it's now a given the skytrain will be extended at least to granville and probably ubc. The question though is when, 5years, 10years??

[mr.x2]

Then she pointed on her map to what was clearly labelled "Finning Station". I asked her "What's that?" "Oh, they're building the Millennium Line station there. I had the guy from Translink in just a few days ago and he said it's going ahead, definitely, and will probably go up to UBC. But there will *definitely* be a Skytrain station only a few blocks away should you choose to buy in our development..."

but the fact that this was clearly marked on the development plan for the area and she had (allegedly) actually talked to somebody in Translink about it...that's at least a good sign that the area plan has reserved space for the station, and by the way she's talking, they are already working behind the scenes on making it a reality, pending results of consultations or not.

that's great news...some confidence in getting this thing built right, as SkyTrain to UBC. lets not make the same mistake as we did with the Canada Line with those miniature platforms.

[Hot Rod]

YES!

Millennium Line SkyTrain, to UBC!!! Awesome.

Hopefully, we'll see/hear that the consultation only backs up/confirms the choice and then we see construction. Especially since we'd have the TBM available.

I agree also, 80-100M platforms please.

[mr.x2]

YES!

Millennium Line SkyTrain, to UBC!!! Awesome.

Hopefully, we'll see/hear that the consultation only backs up/confirms the choice and then we see construction. Especially since we'd have the TBM available.

I agree also, 80-100M platforms please.

it'll be interesting to see how Broadway-City Hall Station on the Canada Line will handle that surge in passengers with the future M-Line extension.....50-metre platforms, what a joke. It's already packed at the Millennium Line's Commercial Station platform during peak hours - and that's a 80-metre platform.

[Canadian Mind]

also remember that it isn't just platform length, but train length aswell. ;) when the trains increase form either millennium or expo lines, the stations wont be as crowded as they are now while people wait for trains to arrive.

[mr.x2]

also remember that it isn't just platform length, but train length aswell. ;) when the trains increase form either millennium or expo lines, the stations wont be as crowded as they are now while people wait for trains to arrive.

that's how it was like too for the Expo Line when the Millennium Line went online. it got a little less crowded, but after a few years it became more crowded than ever before because of the growing transit options the M-Line provided.

...so, what you said will be short-lived.

[deasine]

i just had a thought:

We all know that the Canada Line will exceed its capacity soon after its completion because of the lack of planning given. From what I see today on the 98 B-Line, I'm guessing the busiest sections of the Canada Line will be from Waterfront Station to Bridgeport Station. That is because Vancouver-Suburbs commuters and Vancouver-Vancouver commuters travel in. Well how about removing some of the Vancouver-Vancouver commuters by implementing the Arbutus StreetCar? If it travels from Waterfront Station down Granville St. to W 5th Avenue then existing tracks down Arbutus and wind its way downt to Marine Drive station, I'm sure that some commuters wouldn't mind a slower trip if there was less people but was equally as reliable.

We can't undo what we did to the Canada Line, so might as well introduce new infrastructure to serve with the Canada Line.

[Canadian Mind]

Mr.X, are you saying that adding more and longer trains will cause congestion, implying that is something we don't want?

I thought the goal here was to get more people using mass transportation, so in my opinion the more people crammed into the system, the better. This is why it is called "mass" transportation. ;)

Using your logic, bigger platforms would also only provide a short term solution, as soon people will fill into that space aswell. ;)

Besides, crowded stations will lead the government to feel that the system needs expansion and improvement, therefore bigger platforms and more lines.

[mr.x2]

i just had a thought:

We all know that the Canada Line will exceed its capacity soon after its completion because of the lack of planning given. From what I see today on the 98 B-Line, I'm guessing the busiest sections of the Canada Line will be from Waterfront Station to Bridgeport Station. That is because Vancouver-Suburbs commuters and Vancouver-Vancouver commuters travel in. Well how about removing some of the Vancouver-Vancouver commuters by implementing the Arbutus StreetCar? If it travels from Waterfront Station down Granville St. to W 5th Avenue then existing tracks down Arbutus and wind its way downt to Marine Drive station, I'm sure that some commuters wouldn't mind a slower trip if there was less people but was equally as reliable.

We can't undo what we did to the Canada Line, so might as well introduce new infrastructure to serve with the Canada Line.

That has been thought of before, that the Arbutus streetcar could be a full running LRT line instead.

But the question is, how much would it actually relieve Canada Line congestion?



Mr.X, are you saying that adding more and longer trains will cause congestion, implying that is something we don't want?

I thought the goal here was to get more people using mass transportation, so in my opinion the more people crammed into the system, the better. This is why it is called "mass" transportation.

Using your logic, bigger platforms would also only provide a short term solution, as soon people will fill into that space aswell.

Besides, crowded stations will lead the government to feel that the system needs expansion and improvement, therefore bigger platforms and more lines.

That is something we want....the Broadway M-Line will be dumping tons of people onto the Canada Line. But the question is can the Canada Line handle that? Imagine a Broadway Station scenario, with people waiting for 3 or 4 trains just to get on. Nevertheless, any ridership growth is good.


What I said was a 40/50-metre platform is far from sufficient. Most metro systems around the world build longer platforms so that they can add more cars to the trains for additional future capacity. The Canada Line train is 41-metres long, most of the platforms will be 40-metres long, and all are expandable to 50-metres. What are you going to do with that 9-metres? That's smaller than a bus.

Ideally, the Canada Line should have been built with 80-metre platforms or at the very least 50-metre platforms but extendable in the future to 80-metres.

But it all comes down to poor planning...or rather, poorly flawed principles on how to build a rapid transit rail line on the part of the provincial government...counting nickels and pennies rather than just building it. The P3 system is flawed.




Besides, crowded stations will lead the government to feel that the system needs expansion and improvement, therefore bigger platforms and more lines.

They will definitely see it that way...but if we had built it right, all we would've needed to do was buy more cars instead of ripping up the system and roads apart again to extend the platforms or building another LRT line.

You're going to have people walk into a station in 2009. They will look left. They see a wall nearby. They will look right. They will see another wall nearby. And then they will think, "wtf?"

It can be best put that the Canada Line will be a victim of its own success.

[officedweller]

There should be ways of tweeking the Canada Line to accommodate future increases in ridership:

1 - increase train frequency
2 - short-turn or re-allocate train frequency to focus on heavily travelled sections (i.e. short-turn at Bridgeport or to serve M-Line transferees)
3 - reconfigure seats to allow more standing room (i.e. seats along the walls)
4 - buy more 2-car trains
5 - finish platforms to full 50m lenth and purchase intermediate cars to lengthen trains to 3 cars

[jlousa]

^^ exactly ^^
A 50M station could probably serve a 52-55M train, with the new trains also being wider that's a lot of capacity, this corridor is also a lot less populated then the expo/mill line corridors and scheduled to remain that way. With increased frequency techically possible every 45 seconds the line will serve us fine.

[deasine]

^^ exactly ^^
A 50M station could probably serve a 52-55M train, with the new trains also being wider that's a lot of capacity, this corridor is also a lot less populated then the expo/mill line corridors and scheduled to remain that way. With increased frequency techically possible every 45 seconds the line will serve us fine.

but you see then the problem is that the Canada Line cannot hanndle that train frequency because of all the single tracking at YVR and Richmond.

That has been thought of before, that the Arbutus streetcar could be a full running LRT line instead.

But the question is, how much would it actually relieve Canada Line congestion?

Well we don't have too many choices left. We can of course rebuild sections of the Canada Lien to include longer platforms, etc. but that will be $$$$$$. We can include more buses... but it won't attract more people to the system adding to the fact that buses don't move too quickly in Vancouver. Then we only have the Arbutus option left...

I think the city of Vancouver wanted a number of rapid transit lines to serve the downtown core including the SkyTrain E & M Line, Canada Line, and they were also looking for a SkyTrain type line for Burrard. Maybe instead of the Arubutus line going on Granville it can go underground to Waterfront Station?

The future LRT/Streetcar network I see:
http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/streetcar/images/Phase0.gif
Route 1: From Waterfront Station underground Burrard St. then use existing rail tracks down Arbutus and end up at Marine Drive Station.
Route 2: (Circle Route) From Waterfront Station underground then goes above ground using the red phase (see map) - extend past Granville Island, goes underground using Route 1 tracks in downtown.
Route 3: From Granville St (blue line) to viaducts, then north using red line then onto the green line towards Stanley Park...


I'm sorry if my writing is really messy... just typing all my thoughts down all at once. I should have done a map. Anyways, the city of Vancouver is at an extent that maybe our Transit system can't handle the amount of people unless we build/introduce new fast and reliable services (i.e. LRT/Streetcar)...

[officedweller]

but you see then the problem is that the Canada Line cannot hanndle that train frequency because of all the single tracking at YVR and Richmond.

Waterfront station's platform is double tracked. It can handle the frequency.
Trains can be short-turned at Bridgeport at the south end of the line to provide a short headway between Bridgeport and Waterfront.
Much of the demand will be due to buses off-loading at Bridgeport. In addition, YVR trains would be largely empty during the morning rush hour.

Remember, downtown Vancouver isn't a huge draw in terms of jobs - there's a lot of cross-suburb commuting in the lower mainland. This isn't Toronto.
In addition, Richmond isn't slated to grow as big as Surrey because it's on a flood plain and will liquify in the big earthquake.

If there's a need, the Arbutus corridor can be used and plans formulated at that time.

[cornholio]

If our transit ridership is increased to 30% like planed then this line would not be even close to having enough capacity. If the status quo is maintained then this line should be fine for 20-30 years with the expansion to 50m.

Personally I think our transit ridership is going to increase much faster then some believe mainly because Vancouver has just about reached a critical mass and due to a lack of highways road expansion is impossible, add to this increasing gas prices and strong population growth and you are going to get a rapid increase in transit ridership. A new transit line in to downtown in 2010 is going to take of much quicker then a new transit line in 1986 in my opinion.

In any case its to late to do anything now so all we can do is wait and see.

[mr.x2]

If our transit ridership is increased to 30% like planed then this line would not be even close to having enough capacity. If the status quo is maintained then this line should be fine for 20-30 years with the expansion to 50m.

Personally I think our transit ridership is going to increase much faster then some believe mainly because Vancouver has just about reached a critical mass and due to a lack of highways road expansion is impossible, add to this increasing gas prices and strong population growth and you are going to get a rapid increase in transit ridership. A new transit line in to downtown in 2010 is going to take of much quicker then a new transit line in 1986 in my opinion.

In any case its to late to do anything now so all we can do is wait and see.

Those are my thoughts as well.....i firmly believe that the Canada Line will take off really quickly. It will be a huge success....but in 10 years, I'm willing to bet that it will become a victim of its own success.

....unless there's an earthquake.

[Hot Rod]

I agree that the SkyTrain Canada Line (hey Im calling it that) will be much more successful than planners thought. Who cares that downtown isn't as huge of a job draw as Toronto's is, there's more to downtown than JUST JOBS, which in itself makes it the biggest draw in Metro Vancouver!!!

This brings a question that I dont understand. You go to most major cities around the world and their subway systems have express trains. Yet Vancouver's doesn't.

Why didn't we build in the capability of having express trains, you know - trains that would run past some of the smaller stations at certain times of the day?

I think, if we had express trains - we could probably increase ridership and get more people out of their cars. Because of this, why didn't we build this capability into skytrain CL? At least the Vancouver to Airport portion or at bare minimum, downtown to Bridgeport.??

What about the other SkyTrain lines? Why dont we have an express Surrey to Metrotown to Broadway to Main Street to the Downtown stations??? Why didn't we build this capability in and why is nobody talking about it?

I think Express Lines are a quick and EASY way to increase ridership.
Ive been in systems in Osaka and Nagoya (also Tokyo) where express trains still follow the same routing (although they use different track) but they just fly by 'local' stations, and local trains do the SkyTrain type of stop and go. That made it VERY VERY convenient for business and tourist to get around AS WELL AS the LOCAL residents who want their local stops. And of course, almost everybody in those cities take the transit.. ...

Would it be possible to have some express trains that are timed as such that they could use the existing track alignment? Could we do this?

[officedweller]

Express train systems would require passing tracks to bypass stations. i.e. 3 or 4 track systems - either full length or just around certain stations. That would add a lot to the cost, especially in tunnels.
There are storage tracks on the Skytrain line, but they are not co-located at stations which would allow them to be used as passing tracks. Even if they were co-located at stations, there aren't enough of them to bypass many stations.

[deasine]

I never really liked the "idea" of express trains unless of course there are many stations over a long distant... if we had the express trains running as normal trains, we would increase the frequency of the system overall. I would say this would be a much attractive system.

[Hot Rod]

that's what I was thinking deasine.

we could increase capacity by dedicating/adding a few trains as express as well as speed up travel for commuting pax. Like I said, the X trains would just go past 'local' stations, and stop only at the major ones; Surrey Central, Metrotown, Broadway, YVR, Bridgeport, Marine Dr., Broadway/City Hall, Main Street, Stadium/Chinatown, Yaletown, Granville, Robson, Burrard, Waterfront.

People taking these xpress trains would only stop at the above stations, bypassing the others. It would be very attractive to those who still believe that SkyTrain is slower/less convenient than driving and certainly would appeal to the office commuters into downtown (since they wouldn't have to stop at EVERY station.

And, if they need to get to a local station, they could just get off at an express stop, wait for a local/normal SkyTrain, and voila.

Anyways, there must be a way we could we could implement this now by timing the current/existing network. Maybe later we could build-in bypass tracks once ridership reaches the next critical level.

Perhaps also, these express trains could operate during rush hour periods and these express trains could be long (8-car Mark I, 6-car Mark II, 4-car Canada Line). Rush hour timing could be 6am-9am, 11am-1pm, 4pm-7pm; and during special events downtown.

Like I said, in my idea - we'd still have the "normal" SkyTrain service, its just that we'd have the longer Xpress variety timed such to be 'inserted' between existing runs and not stop at every station (except the major ones I listed).

For the Millennium Line extension, we could/should actually go ahead and build the bypass track. It could be as simple as inserting a track in the middle of the normal twin track at stations (starting several metres prior and after each station) so that a train can 'hop' onto the bypass and keep going. Eventually, we could implement the express bypass at all stations except those in downtown, Main Street, Broadway and City Hall, YVR, and certain other ones that are busy. We could also extend the platforms of YVR, Bridgeport, Marine, CityHall, and the downtown Canada Line stations later to accommodate the Longer express trains.

I dunno, I think this is a GREAT idea, how we could expand capacity without totally redoing the SkyTrain network and certainly would be more cost savvy.

but for start, we should be able to just put together long SkyTrain cars NOW, and insert them into the current runs during rush, letting them just bypass certain local stops, ala Montreal Metro seen here, http://youtube.com/watch?v=eUVc-qUf3Rg (see how it uses the SAME track, no bypass track - it just keeps going since the stop is a 'local' stop but the train is Express).

Why couldn't we start now with something ala the Montreal Metro clip, were LONG express trains use existing track, timed between existing 'normal' skytrains, in which these xpress trains bypass local stops. Then later, we can add in bypass tracks in the middle. The idea is - Add capacity, increase convenience for commuters, minimal cost - hopefully all translates into more usage of the network and MORE Rapid Transit NETWORK!!!!!

Am I on to something!!!>???

[raggedy13]

I think the height of the Amacon tower may have been substantially reduced... to about 145m. But who knows what will ultimately happen.

[Hed Kandi]

I think the height of the Amacon tower may have been substantially reduced... to about 145m. But who knows what will ultimately happen.

Do you have a rendering of it?

[raggedy13]

^Nope, sorry. I haven't even seen a proper rendering of it. Just a simple elevation.

[Canadian Mind]

Lame, the city isn't going to go anywhere skyline-wise if the heights for office towers keep getting cut back to below 150 meters.

what ever happened to the good old days where the office tower was a symbol of power, and was the largest, most bad-ass building in the city?

[LeftCoaster]

They still exist, just not here.

[officedweller]

If the system was designed and built to handle it, express trains would be great.

Some systems use a "skip-stop" system that I think is more problematic but also reduces travel time (at least for those going to certain stations) and can be implemented where there are no passing tracks. Skip-stop works by having certain trains stop at certain stations and other trains stop at the other stations with, I think, all trains stoppng at major stations.
i.e. say you have green trains and red trains. The green trains would stop at even numbered stations and the red trains would stop at odd numbered stations. Both red and green trains would stop at major transfer stations.
That's fine if you start and end your journey at an even or at an odd numbered station, but if you start at an odd station and end at an even station, or vice versa, you'd need to transfer to get to your final station. I'm not sure how much having all trains stop at the transfer stations delays the system in general.

[raggedy13]

Well at least as more office stock is added to the city total (short or tall), the less risky it gets for a developer to build a larger office building next cycle - ie adding 1mil s.f. to a downtown total of 21.5 mil has a greater impact on vacancy rate than adding 1mil s.f. to a downtown total of 25 mil, or 30 mil, or 50 mil, etc.

So if we could add a decent amount this cycle in a series of smaller office towers, we would likely see larger buildings next cycle. When that will be I don't know but who knows what the future holds for Vancouver business trends. Maybe our vacancy rate will keep decreasing leading up to and post-Olympics? So for the next 5 years or so. Maybe the market will be stronger than expected and we'll be able to absorb these first few office towers plus a nice ~150+m? Maybe some sort of major tenant will move into town over the next few years? Perhaps that's being too optimistic but you never know, with the upcoming Olympics this is a particularly unpredictable period for Vancouver.

If Microsoft could move into the Metro, why not other major corporations? Maybe Dubai Ports World will build their North American HQ here? Wishful thinking, I know.

[cornholio]

I think the height of the Amacon tower may have been substantially reduced... to about 145m. But who knows what will ultimately happen.

Thats good I thought that that site wasn't suited for a tall tower and something in 500-550foot range would of been much better as it would add more height variation to the skyline, create more of a dome effect and just fit in better. Though thats not to say that i am against tall towers or that i would of wanted a taller amacon tower proposal changed, but this is more of what I would prefer.

[djh]

Well at least as more office stock is added to the city total (short or tall), the less risky it gets for a developer to build a larger office building next cycle - ie adding 1mil s.f. to a downtown total of 21.5 mil has a greater impact on vacancy rate than adding 1mil s.f. to a downtown total of 25 mil, or 30 mil, or 50 mil, etc.

Erm, it's called Supply and Demand. If there is not enough supply of office space and an actual *demand* for downtown AAA office space, then the first person who builds to meet that demand will have the highest returns, and the lowest risk. The next person to build an office space is likely to have less demand than the previous person, and thus reap the same or lower return.


If Microsoft could move into the Metro, why not other major corporations? Maybe Dubai Ports World will build their North American HQ here? Wishful thinking, I know.

Unions, Taxes, very low productivity per person and high land cost make it more expensive to do business in Canada than the USA. BC moreso. Vancouver even moreso. So there is little incentive for many blue-chip international companies to make major inroads up here. Until those aforementioned barriers to business are abated, Vancouver will not attract that many head offices. Thus, no major office towers. Yes occasionally some big company moves a major office here, but it's usually for altruistic or personal reasons (e.g., the head of Concord Pacific is based in Hong Kong and his son & heir had Canadian citizenship, so that was handy). But if it's just purely a business decision, don't hold your breath.

[raggedy13]

Erm, it's called Supply and Demand. If there is not enough supply of office space and an actual *demand* for downtown AAA office space, then the first person who builds to meet that demand will have the highest returns, and the lowest risk. The next person to build an office space is likely to have less demand than the previous person, and thus reap the same or lower return.

I'm aware, but thanks. Either way my point still stands... 1 million s.f. is more readily absorbed into a market total of 30 million s.f. at 3% vacancy than 1 million s.f. into a market total of 20 million s.f. at 3% vacancy. Hence if in 25 years downtown has 30 million s.f. of office space and is undergoing a period of low vacancy (ie high demand) in the business cycle, it will be able to absorb a 600ft office tower more easily than it could today. If it can easily absorb such a tower, a developer is more likely to propose one.


Unions, Taxes, very low productivity per person and high land cost make it more expensive to do business in Canada than the USA. BC moreso. Vancouver even moreso. So there is little incentive for many blue-chip international companies to make major inroads up here. Until those aforementioned barriers to business are abated, Vancouver will not attract that many head offices. Thus, no major office towers. Yes occasionally some big company moves a major office here, but it's usually for altruistic or personal reasons (e.g., the head of Concord Pacific is based in Hong Kong and his son & heir had Canadian citizenship, so that was handy). But if it's just purely a business decision, don't hold your breath.

Believe me I'm well aware of Vancouver's shortfalls when it comes to attracting business, hence why I said "wishful thinking". But considering the fact that Microsoft came to the metro, it is clear that there are in fact some benefits to operating in Canada and Metro Vancouver. If Vancouver could get its act together it might be able to actually benefit from these advantages however minimal they may appear.

Land costs may be expensive but by international standards this is not a major issue for Vancouver. Also increased site density can help to ultimately offset such costs, assuming the demand is there to warrant greater density (this could be an issue given current COV policies on site densities). Productivity is also not a major issue on an international level as Canada is one of the most productive countries in the world - more so than most Western European nations. In relation to the US though of course Canada is somewhat at a disadvantage but historic trends are not fixed, the US will not always be as attractive as in the past. With their economy taking a major downturn and Canada's still thriving despite this (who knows for how much longer though), who knows what new trends could potentially develope?

Taxes of course are an issue and hopefully one that will be properly addressed one of these days. During the last tax hike, the City showed some mercy to business and kept their rates steady while residential taxes had to pick up the slack. It was a step in the right direction but clearly more drastic measures need to be taken. A lot of people these days seem to have already taken a defeatist attitude and assume that Vancouver will never be more than a resort city, but with the right policies in place, why couldn't Vancouver have the best of both worlds?

Another factor to take into account is homegrown businesses. Vancouver is one of the best cities in the country when it comes to generating startups. If the Province and City could come up with ways of effectively fostering such companies and allowing them to mature before being bought off by some foreign corporation, we wouldn't be as needy of outside interests setting up shop here. But obviously there is a whole other set of issues with this and it requires much more time to pass before seeing any results.

Anyways, I clearly went off on a tangent here. As you may be able to tell, I'm optimistic that Vancouver will one day be successful in more than just condo sales, but only time will tell.

[LeftCoaster]

^ Umm your statements about Canada are a tad off. Primarily corporate taxes in Canada are actually cheaper than in the United States, a common miscomception, as Canada actually has one of the lower corporate tax rates in the world; it is Canada's income taxes which are substantailly higher. Canada along with Australia and The netherlands are usually cited as some of the easiest countries to do business in as their beurocratic efficencies and tax options foster a very business friendly atmosphere.

Also I would disagree with you about the low productivity per person.... I mean really do we consider ourselves lazier than Americans?? Sure Vancouver has an aura of being a lazy hippy stoner city, but thats only becuase there are a large number of people who choose to live that lifestyle. The people who are actually involved in corporate Vancouver are no less motivated than any other across the world.

Unions as well have limited impact on the number of corporations HQ'd in Vancouver as unions are generally shut out of teh corporate world, and are much more of a factor in industrial activites. It could be argued that union presences in Vancouver stifle industrial growth, leading to very little homegrown corporations headquarted in Vancouver, however these industrial companies gerenally have smaller office spaces, as the majority of their business is located elsewhere, and therefore would not have a large impact.

Real estate prices are certainly one of the major factors effecting Vancouver's lack of office space, as is competition from neighbouring Calgary which is a city that is much more desirable to many companies due to it's lower taxes and business friendly attitude. If one beleives Richard Florida than this trend will certainly turn around for Vancouver, but as much as I would like to beleive in the power of the cultural class I just dont see the intensity of change which Florida predicted. Vancouver will no doubt benefit from footloose corporations moving operations to Vanocuver due to its desirability, however I just dont see enough proof that it will happen to any major extent.

Vancouver's only hope in regaining its regional dominance is to continue to decrease corporate taxes and offer other financial incentives for corporations to bring their business to Vancouver. There is little doubt that many companies would like to do more business in Vancouver as it is a desirable city for both upper managment and the rest of teh staff, however for many firms it is just not financially feasable. If Vancouver can make itself an attractive destination for firms financially, not just astheitcally, then I think it will really flourish as a business hub... esepcially with its close ties to Asia.

[raggedy13]

^I assume this is aimed at djh. It would appear that you started typing yours before I finished writing mine, yes?

Anyways, good points LeftCoaster. :)

[cornholio]

Productivity per person has generally nothing to do with the laziness of a person. A farmer in Nigeria working 18 hours a day on his farm is only a fraction as productive as a Canadian working 4 hours a day on his farm using his fancy machinery. With our stronger currency there will be more investment in equipment and technology which will raise worker productivity.

Also productivity per person has nothing to do with gdp per capita, in other words having a valuable resource that everyone wants doesnt make your people more productive however if that resource can be extracted by one of your people faster then by a person from another place then your people are more productive, that fact that you used a shovel while the other person used their bare hands is irrelevant. rant ending now.

[leftside]

I went to the Irish Heather open house last night in Gastown. They are planning on moving across the road to the building that is currently being refurbished. Their plans look very nice and the new pub is based on a pub in Dublin. They should be moved in by May 2008. Sheban and Salty Tongue will also be moving to the new location. I don't know what will be taking their old location.

I spoke to a few other people and there are lots of rumours about future developments in Gastown. Here are some of the rumours:

1) Concord Pacific have bought 7 buildings along Hastings Street (from the Woodwards to Carrall Street) and plan on developing them when the Woodwards is near to completion

2) The building behind the Irish Heather will have a couple of stories added. Probably for office space

3) Developers have their eyes on Cordova Street between Carrall and Abbott. Currently, most of these buidlngs are run by the Portland Hotel Society. If they could be relocated then these buildings would be converted into luxury apartments and would back onto the courtyard in Blood Alley. A couple of restautant owners also see the potential of the same courtyard, and would like to build restaurants along Cordova with the back of the restaurants overlooking the courtyard.

[SFUVancouver]

^ It sounds like that area is finally on the mend. Good.

[officedweller]

Malcolm Parry has an interesting article today about West Pender Place and Reliance Holdings. Apparently a lot of density was transferred form Reliance's Gastown properties to the WPP site. He also notes that John Fluevog will probably take the Richard Kidd space.
He also mentions that Reliance is working on a $450 million 580,000 sq ft residential (70%)/hotel/commercial/retail project downtown and a 350,000 sq ft condo project near Plaza 88 in New Westminster.

By comparison (I checked on the City's website) - Shangri-La is 665,000 sq ft (before floor insertion) and The Ritz-Carlton is 440,000 sq ft.
Any other info / rumours out there? i.e. potential Reliance-owned site?

http://www.relianceholdings.com/commercial/index.html

602 West Hastings (Scotiabank Building) could be feasible (who owns the parkade across the alley?).
Outside possibilities - 402 West Pender (i.e. with rest of block?) or 788 Beatty.
Any possibility that they've bought the Bay Parkade site?

Forget adding third floor, new plan calls for a 10-storey tower
Malcolm Parry, Vancouver Sun
Published: Thursday, November 01, 2007

MORE FLOORS: It was 1962 when Jack Leshgold increased the interests of his family's holding company by putting up a two-floor commercial building at Pender and Broughton Street. Anticipating growth, he had it designed for the addition of a third floor that would , among other things, give a better view of a CPR railyard separating it from Coal Harbour's still-industrial waterfront.

The shipyards and related facilities are long gone. Ditto the tracks. And Leshgold's building is about to join them in the history books. It never did get its third floor. But a 10-storey residential tower will soon rise on its site. A five-floor row of townhouses will then run along Pender Street to the base of a 36-floor tower bordered by Nicola Street.

The $225-million-range project, West Pender Place, will total 270,000 sq. ft. (15,000 of it retail). Tenants will pay an average $1,100 a square foot when Platinum Projects chief George Wong and sister Lily Korsanje begin writing sales agreements Nov. 17. It's expected to generate $121 million worth of sales.

Interest is extremely strong from offshore buyers," said Reliance Properties developer Jon Stovell, who added his firm's first-time relationship with area-experienced Wong is "a good fit." He said buyers are drawn to Coal Harbour "because it is totally downtown geographically and spatially, but still like an urban oasis -- a suburb in the city."

West Pender Place also enjoys 110,000 sq. ft. of transferable density from two of the Leshgold family's many Gastown properties and projects. They are the heritage-redevelopment of 55 Water St. into 64 live-work units in 2002, and a current project at the 1886-built 210 Carrall St. for occupancy in early 2008. Reliance Properties also redeveloped 101 Water St. in 1987. Papered-over windows of its dramatically glass-fronted property at 65 Water St. mark the closure of the Richard Kidd store and the impending arrival of another fashion outfit, believed to be shoemaker-to-the-stars John Fluevog.

Twenty-five-year Reliance hand Stovell knows city hall like his own hand. As president of the Gastown Business Improvement Association, he helped develop the Heritage Management Plan's incentive model, that gives grants, tax holidays and density transfers to qualifying projects. Since 2006, he has sat on the Development Permit Board's advisory panel.

"We learn a lot from studying the city planners' priorities," he said. "We follow as closely as we can, and give the planners what they like to see."

The flip side of that mantra is density bonuses -- such as the one to West Pender Place.

There's more to come from a restoration and maintenance project on Alexander Street. And Reliance's redevelopment of a former down-at-the-heels property on East Hastings Street will create 30 fully equipped, 275-sq.-ft. micro-suites which will rent at market rates of $1.50 per square foot to $1.80 per foot (between $400 and $500 per month). Architect Bruce Carscadden has studied current Asian practices for maximizing livability in the suites.

Density transfers from those projects should go to a 580,000-sq.-ft. downtown tower with up to 70 per cent residential occupancy and the balance for hotel, commercial and retail space. At an expected $450 million, it will double Reliance's current costliest project, West Pender Place.

The firm will also undertake a 350,000-sq.-ft. primarily residential development at Columbia and Eighth Street, New Westminster, near to Degelder Group president Michael Degelder's Plaza 888 project, where three of four towers are under construction.

As for subsequent developments, Stovell echoed standard holding-company policy with: "Because your properties are always changing relative to each other, you just follow where the zoning potential is on them."

[phesto]

Malcolm Parry has an interesting article today about West Pender Place and Reliance Holdings. Apparently a lot of density was transferred form Reliance's Gastown properties to the WPP site. He also notes that John Fluevog will probably take the Richard Kidd space.
He also mentions that Reliance is working on a $450 million 580,000 sq ft residential (70%)/hotel/commercial/retail project downtown and a 350,000 sq ft condo project near Plaza 88 in New Westminster.

By comparison (I checked on the City's website) - Shangri-La is 665,000 sq ft (before floor insertion) and The Ritz-Carlton is 440,000 sq ft.
Any other info / rumours out there? i.e. potential Reliance-owned site?

http://www.relianceholdings.com/commercial/index.html

602 West Hastings (Scotiabank Building) could be feasible (who owns the parkade across the alley?).
Outside possibilities - 402 West Pender (i.e. with rest of block?) or 788 Beatty.
Any possibility that they've bought the Bay Parkade site?

I don't know of another site that Reliance has acquired, but I doubt it is any of those you've mentioned.

602 W. Hastings - If joined with the parkade, the site would be about 30k sq ft. Problem is you'd be at about 15 FSR for residential alone, and you'd have to convince the City to close an alley for a condo project. Also, the owner of that parkade has refused to sell for years, I'd be surpised if Reliance were the ones who coughed up enough to get the owner to sell.

402 W. Pender - if they have the whole block it is again only about 30,000 sq ft. I don't see how they could get that much space in without massive floorplates, given height and view cone restrictions.

788 Beatty - too small.

The Holborn group bought the Bay Parkade site.

Post office site? I remember Jlousa talking about a 450 ft condo project downtown, any update on that?

[jlousa]

I haven't heard to be honest, but if I were to guess I would venture it's either the parkade behing Scotia Tower (but city wants office only), or possibly one to the Granville St loop sites (the plans I've seen show two huge towers (450ftish) where each loop currently is) But I imagine those won't even hit the proposal stage until after the Granville St Redesign is completed.

If he has numbers like sqftage already it's a good chance some concrete details will surface in the next month.

[officedweller]

Thanks for the input guys.

Post Office sounds feasible but probably too far off.

Are there plans to redevelop the Scotia Tower / Vancouver Centre parkade - that's the only parking for Vancouver Centre and I think it's part of the CD-1 zoning for the site.

Wow, 450 ft next to (flanking?) the bridge? Probably not the best area for a condo/hotel combination though - I tend to think high end when I hear that.

Who owns the surface parking lot on Richards near Robson? I suppose it could also be the Telus parking garage on Robson @ Richards too. But as Phesto mentioned, it would have to be a big site and those aren't very big. i.e. Checked L'Hermitage sq ftage and its 281,600 sq ft. (even with its bonuses).

... and of course the Sutton Place concept comes to mind...

[leftside]

> and a current project at the 1886-built 210 Carrall St.
> for occupancy in early 2008.
That's where the Irish Heather is going

[jlousa]

Hmm now that I think about it, wonder if it could be the redevelopment of the old Coast Hotel on Denman once the new Coast opens up. While 580,000sqft sounds large it's not that big if you use a decent sized floorplate. Fairmont Pacific Rim is 800,000sqft for reference.

Psst it's not the Post Office, that site when it's all said and done will be closer to 2Million sqft then .5Million.

[phesto]

Ya, I guess we'll hear about a rezoning or DP application if Reliance is talking square footages already.

The Telus site hasn't changed hands yet, but in any event -a mixed use scheme with max density + bonus for including office probably won't exceed 400,000 sq ft.

Has there been any discussion about demolishing the existing Coast on Denman? I just figured it would be retrofitted for condos given the current state of construction costs, but I imagine a new building in that location would sell at pretty high ppsf, especially if the new owner could rebuild to the same height.

[jlousa]

My understanding is also that they will retrofit the old coast hotel for condos, but I can also see that being almost as expensive as starting fresh. Replumbing all units, new electrical, new fire supression system, new fire panel, tearing down walls to increase sqft of units and then still ending up with awkward floorplans. Then selling cheaper as it's got the stigma of old and not new. I wouldn't touch that project unless I got it for land cost only, even then.

[SunCoaster]

This isn't highrise related but, does relate to 'rumored' new Vancouver developments ... I heard a rumor, from a reliable source, that Molson Breweries is about to undergo a major expansion of their current facility located in the 1500 block of Burrard. Apparently the expansion will cost in the neighbourhood of $30M and will be built on what is currently Molson's parking lot. Not sure by how much this expansion will expand Molson's Vancouver bottling capacity but, I have heard that the increased capacity in the Vancouver facility is a direct result of Molson's shutting their Edmonton facility due to an extended strike @ the end of August, 2007 ... in addition to the increased production capacity, the expansion will house new employees and relocated employees again due to the Edmonton closure

[Canadian Mind]

Good to hear, all the more reason to get totally wasted in this city.:cheers:

[cornholio]

^^I would of thought moving out to the burbs would of been in their long term plans because the land they sit on is worth a ton, not to mention that their businesses relies on the provincial and international markets so operating their facility in the middle of gridlocked Vancouver would be costly, inefficient and unnecessary. Interesting if they do decide to do a major expansion though because that will be a sign that they will remain at that location for another few decades, though I highly doubt this as I cant see how this is the best option for them.

[murman]

This isn't highrise related but, does relate to 'rumored' new Vancouver developments ... I heard a rumor, from a reliable source, that Molson Breweries is about to undergo a major expansion of their current facility located in the 1500 block of Burrard. Apparently the expansion will cost in the neighbourhood of $30M and will be built on what is currently Molson's parking lot. Not sure by how much this expansion will expand Molson's Vancouver bottling capacity but, I have heard that the increased capacity in the Vancouver facility is a direct result of Molson's shutting their Edmonton facility due to an extended strike @ the end of August, 2007 ... in addition to the increased production capacity, the expansion will house new employees and relocated employees again due to the Edmonton closure

I wonder if aboriginal Canadians might gum this up; this site sits on the Kitsilano Indian Reserve which was parceled up and sold off years ago.

[Rusty Gull]

^Unless Molson wanted to maintain that parcel of land for prestige/marketing purposes? For example, it would be a perfect location for a "Molson Amphitheatre" -- or some such entertainment amenity.

I suppose the other question is... Isn't that land contested by First Nations, and specifically the Burrard Band?

[cornholio]

^If thats the case then I could understand the expansion plans since a sale of the land and redevelopment would be almost impossible.

[jo67sh]

what is the future of BC place stadium after the olympics..
i heard somewhere that the place would be torn down for condos..

who owns the stadium now?

i thought the whole concept of olympics is leaving a legacy...
it would be a shame to tear down the location of opening and closing ceremonies..instead, it shouldbe kept indefinitely

[agrant]

:previous: Sounds like a rumour.

[mr.x2]

what is the future of BC place stadium after the olympics..
i heard somewhere that the place would be torn down for condos..

who owns the stadium now?

i thought the whole concept of olympics is leaving a legacy...
it would be a shame to tear down the location of opening and closing ceremonies..instead, it shouldbe kept indefinitely

They're only spending about $5 million for Olympic renovations on the stadium, so there isn't much of a legacy in the first place to this 25 year old marshmallow.

The stadium being teared down for condos are only rumours. It's owned by Pavco, a provincial crown corporation. And it'll be only all that much more likely with the convention centre completed (especially if it's underbooked) and if Whitecaps Stadium is built.

The Lions owners have made known that they would like to buy the stadium and do some major renovations to make it a money making facility. Note that the Lions cannot share stadiums with the Whitecaps at their proposed facility on the Waterfront since the Whitecaps intend on entering the MLS, which requires a soccer specific facility...not to mention the Lions would want a larger facility than what the Whitecaps want.

[Hot Rod]

if MLS requires soccer specific stadiums, then why was Seattle awarded a franchise for 2009??? Seattle does not have a soccer specific stadium nor is there a plan for a soccer stadium nor will there ever be. Furthermore, the team will play at Qwest Field (a NFL football stadium), and the team will be owned in part by NFL Seattle Seahawks owner Paul Allen.

Seems like Vancouver either has the wrong storey or is selling itself short with regard to the need for a soccer specific stadium in order to enter the MLS. Why do we need the whitecaps stadium (and if we do need a soccer specific, why does it have to be downtown on the waterfront???)?????

I say, renovate or rebuild (with a smaller footprint) GM Place. Build a retractable roof and modern luxury suites and concessions/amenities. Make it top dollar and make it like Qwest (so the CFL and MLS can play there). In doing this, we could also maximize the use of the stadium.

We need to upgrade and use what we got. I dont see the need to destroy the waterfront with a soccer specific stadium that would be used 10 times a year. ....???

[Canadian Mind]

I don't think the waterfront would be destroyed, that is a dead area and a well-designed stadium could potentially be the crown jewel Vancouver's waterfront needs (ala the Sydney opera house and bridge).

[Smooth]

They're only spending about $5 million for Olympic renovations on the stadium, so there isn't much of a legacy in the first place to this 25 year old marshmallow.

The stadium being teared down for condos are only rumours. It's owned by Pavco, a provincial crown corporation. And it'll be only all that much more likely with the convention centre completed (especially if it's underbooked) and if Whitecaps Stadium is built.

The Lions owners have made known that they would like to buy the stadium and do some major renovations to make it a money making facility. Note that the Lions cannot share stadiums with the Whitecaps at their proposed facility on the Waterfront since the Whitecaps intend on entering the MLS, which requires a soccer specific facility...not to mention the Lions would want a larger facility than what the Whitecaps want.

I spoke with Bob Lenarduzzi at one of the waterfront stadium open houses and he said the Whitecaps approached the Lions about having both teams using the stadium. He suggested that one of the reasons the Lions didn't sign on to making the move was that they didn't want the Province to have a reason to break the Lion's long term lease with BC Place.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Lions made the move to the waterfront stadium once it was a sure bet.

[jlousa]

The Lions have sold 43K tickets for this weekends game already, they will have over 50K at the game. The grey cup games which we get every few years sell over 60K tickets. Don't see why the Lions would be interested in limiting themselves to only 30K a game. I don't have the numbers but I wouldn't be surprised if the lions average more then 30K for regular season games, even if they don't I'm sure their plan is to average more then that.

Pavco should rename the stadium after Terry Fox, and invest some money into it then people would stop talking about knocking it down. The new convention centre is still too small for the auto shows/boat show/home and garden show. The larger trade shows will still need a stadium.

[hollywoodnorth]

Pavco should rename the stadium after Terry Fox, and invest some money into it then people would stop talking about knocking it down. The new convention centre is still too small for the auto shows/boat show/home and garden show. The larger trade shows will still need a stadium.

hehehe that is brilliant! Terry Fox Place does have a nice ring to it ;)

[Hot Rod]

Well, here is what I say. We want to be in the MLS and we DONT need an MLS soccer specific stadium - unlike what many here have been preaching. I think, we should redo BC Place ala Qwest Field - with seating of at least 60K so that we could attract ALL events (Grey Cup, World Cup, so on).

We need to think BIG and utilize what we got. I think rebuilding BC Place we could free up space (shrinking the footprint) and then get rid of many of those lots that surround it (add in retail parkades, which in themselves should be attractions on off-game days).

I just dont think we should build a soccer specific stadium on the waterfront. I do agree it needs to be developed, but I would prefer a combination office district expansion/urban village. I think we should use the area for our next tallest, over 800 feet - I say this because looking at the Shangri-La from the water, it really isnt as much of an impact on the skyline as we previously thought and since the waterfront is some 150 feet lower than the base of Shangri-La,

we should be able to build a 850 ft tower without it being too much taller than the rest of downtown - yet still being significant, since you'd see the WHOLE tower due to its waterfront location. I'd say, the building should be a World Trade Center OR International Finance Center - Vancouver. It should be Iconic and be the basis for the new Vancouver!!

I'd much rather have jobs at the waterfront location (SkyTrain intermodal station RIGHT THERE!!!) than build a stadium there that would only be used 10-15 times a year (and certainly not one that is ONLY 15K or even 30K seats - toooo small). Let's do it right, rebuild BC Place into a 65K seat retractable roof palace and make the surrounding area a TRUE major-league entertainment district!!!

[jlousa]

The waterfront stadium will get built, I only hope it gets built over the seabus terminal (Location#2). Having a MLS vancouver team play in a 60K stadium would be pointless. They need a 30K stadium max to succeed (atomsphere is what the whitecaps have been lacking since they left the PNE), also the stadium would be used for concerts/VSO events, rugbym tennis etc. I'm pretty sure Kerfoot didn't get rich building white elephants. As far as a 800ft tower in that location, it will never happen in any of our lifetimes. That area belongs to the VPA plus Gastown residents would never let it happen. It isn't about Nimbism, it's just not the approprate place.

I drew up a plan ages ago of what I'd love the area to look like, not that I think it'd happen but I'm sure most Gastown residents would agree with it.

[LeftCoaster]

Well, here is what I say. We want to be in the MLS and we DONT need an MLS soccer specific stadium - unlike what many here have been preaching. I think, we should redo BC Place ala Qwest Field - with seating of at least 60K so that we could attract ALL events (Grey Cup, World Cup, so on).

We need to think BIG and utilize what we got. I think rebuilding BC Place we could free up space (shrinking the footprint) and then get rid of many of those lots that surround it (add in retail parkades, which in themselves should be attractions on off-game days).

I just dont think we should build a soccer specific stadium on the waterfront. I do agree it needs to be developed, but I would prefer a combination office district expansion/urban village. I think we should use the area for our next tallest, over 800 feet - I say this because looking at the Shangri-La from the water, it really isnt as much of an impact on the skyline as we previously thought and since the waterfront is some 150 feet lower than the base of Shangri-La,

we should be able to build a 850 ft tower without it being too much taller than the rest of downtown - yet still being significant, since you'd see the WHOLE tower due to its waterfront location. I'd say, the building should be a World Trade Center OR International Finance Center - Vancouver. It should be Iconic and be the basis for the new Vancouver!!

I'd much rather have jobs at the waterfront location (SkyTrain intermodal station RIGHT THERE!!!) than build a stadium there that would only be used 10-15 times a year (and certainly not one that is ONLY 15K or even 30K seats - toooo small). Let's do it right, rebuild BC Place into a 65K seat retractable roof palace and make the surrounding area a TRUE major-league entertainment district!!!

I dont know what your issue with the waterfront stadium is, but this is your second post today blasting the idea. I for one think it is a great idea, and a chance to have an iconic waterfront showpeice for Vancouver. Realistically im sure we will end up with some architechturally mediocre but incredibly functional tame stadium.... but that setting cannot be beat. And it wouldnt only be used 10-15 times per year, but could be used for many different events, from outdoor rock concerts with the most incredible backdrops in the world, or space for a myriad of sporting tournaments, including rugby soccer and many more.

Furthermore where is the money going to be coming from to build a 65k seat retractable stadium??? The CFL?? HA! they barely have enough money to keep the dome inflated. And how rediculious would it be to have the Whitecaps play in a half empty stadium every game. Even most of the teams in the English Premiership have little more than 30 000 person stadiums. Lets wait for the NFL to expand to Canada before we even begin to discuss anything of this magnatude.

The soccer stadium on the waterfront will also not be the only development on the waterfront, it will surely be accompanied by well planned residential and commercial neighbourhoods, and the stadium will be the centerpeice of the latest waterfront neighbourhood in Vanocuver, and what we can only hope is the latest urban planing showpeice and success story.

I mean how many other cities can boast a waterfront stadium like the proposed stadium here, with the surrounding mountains to boot. It will not only all but guarantee Vancouver an MLS team, but would probably help Vancouver attract even more big ticket performances and one time events.

PS: as a sad but true side note, you need international finance or world trade to support a building of such significance... something Vancouver is notably lacking.

[LeftCoaster]

I drew up a plan ages ago of what I'd love the area to look like, not that I think it'd happen but I'm sure most Gastown residents would agree with it.


You wouldnt happen to have that kicking around/be willing to share it with us would you?

[TwoFace]

PS: as a sad but true side note, you need international finance or world trade to support a building of such significance... something Vancouver is notably lacking.

HUH, Vancouver’s Real Estate Boom is mostly based on Foreign Investment. Coal Harbour and Concord Pacific were both made possible due to Asian financing.
Most of the current developments are Foreign financed and owned: Shangri-La, Ritz Carlton, Georgia, Fairmont, West Pender, Lagoon, etc

[LeftCoaster]

^International finance usually refers to the finance industry (ie investment firms, brokerage houses, stock markets etc...) not the financing of businesses. Vancouver is home to an unfortunately low number of these types of firms. Sorry for the confusion, quite poorly worded in retrospect.

[EastVanMark]

hehehe that is brilliant! Terry Fox Place does have a nice ring to it ;)

Been there, done that. That idea was floated around the time the dome was built in the early eighties but was shot down when it was decided that it would be too difficult for non Canadians to recognize the name and associate it with Vancouver and British Columbia. The Terry Fox Plaza was thought to be a more suitable idea to honor the local legend.

[agrant]

It's just a matter of time before the name BC Place is changed to something more corporate, like Starbucks Stadium. Or heaven forbid, Starbucks Place. :rolleyes:

[deasine]

Delete

[mr.x2]

Originally Posted by Hot Rod View Post
Well, here is what I say. We want to be in the MLS and we DONT need an MLS soccer specific stadium - unlike what many here have been preaching. I think, we should redo BC Place ala Qwest Field - with seating of at least 60K so that we could attract ALL events (Grey Cup, World Cup, so on).

We need to think BIG and utilize what we got. I think rebuilding BC Place we could free up space (shrinking the footprint) and then get rid of many of those lots that surround it (add in retail parkades, which in themselves should be attractions on off-game days).

I just dont think we should build a soccer specific stadium on the waterfront. I do agree it needs to be developed, but I would prefer a combination office district expansion/urban village. I think we should use the area for our next tallest, over 800 feet - I say this because looking at the Shangri-La from the water, it really isnt as much of an impact on the skyline as we previously thought and since the waterfront is some 150 feet lower than the base of Shangri-La,

we should be able to build a 850 ft tower without it being too much taller than the rest of downtown - yet still being significant, since you'd see the WHOLE tower due to its waterfront location. I'd say, the building should be a World Trade Center OR International Finance Center - Vancouver. It should be Iconic and be the basis for the new Vancouver!!

I'd much rather have jobs at the waterfront location (SkyTrain intermodal station RIGHT THERE!!!) than build a stadium there that would only be used 10-15 times a year (and certainly not one that is ONLY 15K or even 30K seats - toooo small). Let's do it right, rebuild BC Place into a 65K seat retractable roof palace and make the surrounding area a TRUE major-league entertainment district!!!

I dont know what your issue with the waterfront stadium is, but this is your second post today blasting the idea. I for one think it is a great idea, and a chance to have an iconic waterfront showpeice for Vancouver. Realistically im sure we will end up with some architechturally mediocre but incredibly functional tame stadium.... but that setting cannot be beat. And it wouldnt only be used 10-15 times per year, but could be used for many different events, from outdoor rock concerts with the most incredible backdrops in the world, or space for a myriad of sporting tournaments, including rugby soccer and many more.

Furthermore where is the money going to be coming from to build a 65k seat retractable stadium??? The CFL?? HA! they barely have enough money to keep the dome inflated. And how rediculious would it be to have the Whitecaps play in a half empty stadium every game. Even most of the teams in the English Premiership have little more than 30 000 person stadiums. Lets wait for the NFL to expand to Canada before we even begin to discuss anything of this magnatude.

The soccer stadium on the waterfront will also not be the only development on the waterfront, it will surely be accompanied by well planned residential and commercial neighbourhoods, and the stadium will be the centerpeice of the latest waterfront neighbourhood in Vanocuver, and what we can only hope is the latest urban planing showpeice and success story.

I mean how many other cities can boast a waterfront stadium like the proposed stadium here, with the surrounding mountains to boot. It will not only all but guarantee Vancouver an MLS team, but would probably help Vancouver attract even more big ticket performances and one time events.

PS: as a sad but true side note, you need international finance or world trade to support a building of such significance... something Vancouver is notably lacking.


I completely agree...lets be realistic, this new stadium will be a gift for us - it's completely free - no public funds needed.

If you want to rebuild BC Place as a 65,000 seat retractable roofer, you're looking at costs at least of $500 million....and who's going to pay for it?

Also, the Whitecaps don't want to be stuck in the middle of a 65,000 seater. They don't need 65,000 seats...even in the future, all they will probably need is 30,000 seats at the most. The goal is to create an intimate European-style soccer stadium, with fabulous Vancouver views as a backdrop, and as one of the most transit friendly stadium in the world. We all know how empty seats ruin the atmosphere of a game - e.g. upper bowl of BC Place empty during Lions games, Athens Olympics, Torino Olympics, etc.

With regarding usage, a stadium being used 10-15 times a year? If that were the case, which it isn't, there's absolutely no business case to build a new stadium. In fact, there wouldn't be even a business case for stadiums to exist in the city.

The real number in usage will be about 100 events/days per year, with about 1/3rd of those being Whitecaps Mens AND Women's games. Other functions include International soccer featuring Canada's National Men's & Women's teams, plus top level club teams, Amazing outdoor concerts and music festivals, International rugby matches and tournaments, Summer performances by the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra, Vancouver International Jazz Festival, Professional beach volleyball, Corporate sports days, University & Provincial soccer & rugby, Movies under the stars, X Games & Motocross, Annual Vancouver Birthday Celebration, conventions (especially being right next to the convention centre), Tennis matches & tournaments, and Ethnic & community festivals.

Not to mention, if you look at the most recent rendering you will see that there's an office/retail/hotel/residential component above the stadium that will act as the entry point into the stadium.

[mr.x2]

Vancouver excluded from Major League Soccer expansion
Dan Stinson, Vancouver Sun
Published: Tuesday, November 13, 2007

The Vancouver Whitecaps won't be included in Major League Soccer's expansion plans - at least in the foreseeable future - unless the team has a proper stadium in which to play, says MLS commissioner Don Garber.

Speaking from Seattle, where he announced earlier today that a still-to-be-named Seattle expansion franchise will join MLS in 2009, Garber said that until the Whitecaps have a stadium plan in place "we are unable to make any commitments to Vancouver."

As things stand now, the Whitecaps may already be out of the running to join North America's premier soccer circuit.

Garber, who has visited Vancouver and met with Whitecaps officials including team owner Greg Kerfoot, described the city as "a wonderful soccer market that has had a lot of success in soccer."

But he stressed that Vancouver must have a proper stadium to be considered for MLS expansion.

"The key for Vancouver is being sure they have a stadium plan," Garber said. "It's the third leg of the stool to give the city an opportunity to be part of the mix in future MLS expansion."

MLS will add a 14th franchise, the reborn San Jose Earthquakes, in 2008. Garber said the league hopes to add a 16th franchise by the end of this year before Seattle comes aboard in 2009.

MLS has long-range plans for 17th and 18th franchises, but Garber said no timeline has been place on that expansion.

"Many cities across the United States, plus Montreal, have indicated interest in becoming the 17th and 18th franchises," Garber said.

"We would give priority to the cities that have proper stadiums and the right business plans. Vancouver can only get into that mix with a proper stadium."

The Whitecaps announced in October 2005 their plans to build Whitecaps Waterfront Stadium, a planned 15,000-seat facility on Vancouver's waterfront in the Gastown area.

The cost of the stadium will be covered by Kerfoot.

But Whitecaps president Bob Lenarduzzi said the stadium project has been delayed by slow-moving negotiations with the Vancouver Port Authority on "a number of issues."

"We're not moving along as quickly as we need to be on this project," said Lenarduzzi. "A proper stadium here is the issue with MLS. I don't know how it can be put any stronger than Don Garber did today."

Lenarduzzi said that negotiations have been so slow with the Port Authority that the Whitecaps can't put a firm timeline on completion of the stadium.

"The best-case scenario now is sometime in 2011," he said.

Garber said that might be too late for the Whitecaps to be considered as an MLS expansion team. "Two of the many cities that Vancouver is competing with for an expansion franchise are Portland and Montreal," said Garber. "Both of those cities are in the mix because they have stadium plans in place. It's hard to imagine Vancouver being part of MLS without a proper stadium."

The stadium project will go to Vancouver city council for final approval after the Whitecaps' negotiations with the Port Authority have successfully concluded.

City councillor Suzanne Anton said she will urge council to act quickly on final approval. "Negotiations with the Port Authority are primarily centred on where the stadium will be located," said Anton. "It's not resolved yet, but the process needs to be speeded up. We have a wonderful opportunity here for a first-class facility that will serve many, many purposes, including soccer. I will urge council to move forward quickly on this project."

The Whitecaps currently play in the second-tier United Soccer Leagues First Division at 5,200-seat Swangard Stadium in Burnaby.

Swangard Stadium doesn't come close to meeting MLS seating requirements.

"Ideally, we want 18,000 to 27,000-seat stadiums in MLS," said Garber. "That's the appropriate size. But we'd rather be closer to 18,000 because of the intimacy those stadiums have."

The Seattle Sounders will play their final USLFD season in 2008 before the Seattle MLS entry moves into 72,000-seat Qwest Field in 2009.


Qwest Field will have a capacity of about 25,000 for MLS games. Lenarduzzi said moving into 60,000-seat BC Place Stadium is not an option for the Whitecaps, even on a temporary basis as negotiations continue on the waterfront stadium.

"BC Place Stadium is not an option, both financially and as a proper facility," he said. "First impressions with the public are very important. We want a stadium that our fans can identify with, and be comfortable with, from the very first game."

danstinson@shaw.ca




and what did i tell ya?....well, i told you so.

[Rusty Gull]

HUH, Vancouver’s Real Estate Boom is mostly based on Foreign Investment. Coal Harbour and Concord Pacific were both made possible due to Asian financing.
Most of the current developments are Foreign financed and owned: Shangri-La, Ritz Carlton, Georgia, Fairmont, West Pender, Lagoon, etc

Do you have your facts straight on this?

I understand that Concord Pacific was made possible due to financing from Asia-based investors (although a consortium of Canadian investors also wanted to buy the Expo lands), but many of the buildings in Coal Harbour were financed by Canadians.

As for Shangri-La, it's true that Shangri-La Hotels of Hong Kong will operate the hotel there, but they are not involved in the financing/development of the tower. In fact, it's the condominium sales that make the existence of the hotel in this building possible.

As for your foreign ownership assertion, that's also debatable. Bob Rennie has been quoted as saying that the breakdown for condo buyers downtown between Canadians and foreigners (in new developments) is much more balanced.

[TwoFace]

Do you have your facts straight on this?

I understand that Concord Pacific was made possible due to financing from Asia-based investors (although a consortium of Canadian investors also wanted to buy the Expo lands), but many of the buildings in Coal Harbour were financed by Canadians.
.


According to the Vancouver Magazine (http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:DcJtxfFYnu8J:www.vanmag.com/0312/power.htm+walter+kwok+ASPAC&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=firefox-a): Walter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Kwok), Raymond and Thomas Kwok (Owners, Aspac Developments Ltd.) The Kwok brothers prefer to keep a low profile, even if their city-changing buildings don’t. A joint-venture partnership in 1993 with Marathon Developments, the real estate arm of CP Rail, is developing the coveted former railway lands in Coal Harbour.


Under this agreement, Aspac co-owns the land and 100 percent of the residential developments. The recently completed five-tower Waterfront Place is the first phase of the project. The second, Harbour Green Place, will consist of three towers, with suites selling from $1 million to $6 million. The skyline-defining buildings will contain more than 1,000 units.


Local accomplishments are dwarfed, however, by the Kwoks’ interests in Asia. Named 42nd on Forbes magazine’s list of the world’s richest people, the three brothers have an estimated worth of $6.6 billion.


Their public company, Sun Hung Kai Properties, just completed the tallest building in Hong Kong, an 88-storey office, shopping, entertainment and hotel complex. They’ve recently made ground in mainland China with office and shopping centres and also own an Internet provider, mobile phone services, toll roads, a franchised bus operation, port business and airport-related projects. SHKP was recently named Asia’s best developer by Finance Asia.

[Hot Rod]

Personally, I dont think we need the MLS. Vancouver is a world class city without it, we dont need somebody telling us that we need a soccer specific stadium yet at the same time letting Seattle get away with playing at a football stadium.

I honestly dont really see what you guys have such a hard on about being in the MLS. And I certainly dont understand why the MLS has such a hard on for a soccer specific stadium before they'd come here.

If it was so great, then they could play at BC place. Why is it 'NOT AN OPTION???'

[LeftCoaster]

Its not an option becuase the whitecaps can't afford the rents to play there... BC place charges alot of money to rent its space out and Kerfoot obviously feels as though he cannot break even playing in such a rediculiously large space. That being said I dont know how the sounders can afford to play in Quest stadium... are the stadium owners and the Sounder's owners partners or something?

And as for the MLS, well alot of us here are soccer fans, and would like an alternative to paying $100 per ticket to go see a Canucks game from the nosebleeds. Don't get me wrong, im a canucks fan first and foremost, but Im also a student... effectively cutting me down to a few nuks games per year at best. Having the option of going to a Major League Soccer game every once in a while would be great.

[mr.x2]

Personally, I dont think we need the MLS. Vancouver is a world class city without it, we dont need somebody telling us that we need a soccer specific stadium yet at the same time letting Seattle get away with playing at a football stadium.

I honestly dont really see what you guys have such a hard on about being in the MLS. And I certainly dont understand why the MLS has such a hard on for a soccer specific stadium before they'd come here.

If it was so great, then they could play at BC place. Why is it 'NOT AN OPTION???'

:koko:

[leftside]

- We need a soccer stadium
- We need the MLS
- There is no point in sharing a stadium with the Lions. The soccer stadium needs to be much smaller. There is nothing worse than watching games in a half empty stadium. The English team I support are only in the Championship (one below the Premiership) and their ground is only 25,000, but they regularly sell it out and the atmosphere is fantastic.
- The location.... well, if you've been reading other threads you'll know I'm opposed to the current proposed location next to Crab Park, but I'm in favour of the location over the Seabus terminal.

Any chance the mods can move all of these Whitecap related discussions to one thread?

[jlousa]

I'll try to find the old rendering, the quality was garbage (MS paint) and done by myself. You'll understand when you see it. It had the stadium/seabus/new cruiseship terminal all intergrated over the current seabus location. Canada Place way extended as a pedestian/emergency vechile street wrapping back via the landing parkade to Richards. Another office tower next to 200 Granville, crab park extended to the new stadium (no more cruisepark) the tracks are covered with a green roof and pedestrian access continued along Cambie/Abbott/Carrell, over the tracks would be a number of restaurants/bars with great views, while not blocking any views from existing gastown residents.

But I've learned the reason for this to be impossible now is because Translink shot down having the stadium integrated with the seabus terminal. What a shame, and I can't figure out why.

[officedweller]

Well, if Translink introduces additional ser